And - unsurprisingly - from others as well. I'm new to your behavior, but it doesn't seem teribly considered or mature, does it? Maybe a change of job (to one in which your opinions are not required) is advised?

You took the word of those you admired. Nothing embarrassing about that, only discouraging. And an indication of the importance this climate change argument has, far beyond simple technical analysis. With the Gleick semi-confession (not finished, right?), it is now public that spinning the "truth" is on the Green side, just as you have said it is on the skeptic side. Which is not a surprise.

Nullius in verba. Don't take anyone's word for it, could be taken to be a condemnation of humanity. I see it as revealing two things: 1) virtually nothing is either settled or certain, and 2) the final decision is biased by our emotional as well as intellectual attachment to the implications of what we accept.

Not all warmist claims are bogus. Not all skeptic claims are bogus. That being said, anyone who tells you to believe him, her or it unconditionally is one of those people your mother told you to stay away from.

There's no news here, just recycling. As I pointed out in his earlier thread, the original reports said just that - ANU had not contacted the AFP but they were aware of the threats.

I tried to post this in the "paging" thread at WUWT, but I'm on troll moderation, and is hasn't appeared, though something else has. It seems odd for Anthony to be "paging" me and then making it hard to respond.

Unless you do the honourable thing and apologise unreservedly to Anthony Watts, you will be forever considered a wilfully perjured individual, devoid of all moral worth and totally unfit to be received into the society of men who prize honour and virtue above falsehood and weakness.

Unless you do the honourable thing and apologise unreservedly to Anthony Watts, you will be forever considered a wilfully perjured individual, devoid of all moral worth and totally unfit to be received into the society of men who prize honour and virtue above falsehood and weakness.

Apparently none of the Watties Anonymous have read the actual report by the Information Commissioner:

15. The question is how release of the documents could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any person. In other words, the question is whether release of the documents could be expected to create the risk, not whether the documents reflect an existing credible threat. Even if the threats were highly credible, the question would be how release of the documents would add to the expected threat.

...and based on this he recommends release of the mails, provided the identities of the individuals in the mails are obscured (Hmm, I wonder why?):

...that the 11 documents that are the subject of this IC review are exempt, but edited copies [...] should be released to the applicant...

The whole report is simply not about whether there were credible threats or not. David was in his full right to call out the usual dishonesty of Watts & co.

Wow - that is some double standard there. Watts has so many things wrong and still online that HE needs to correct before he starts calling others that it is hard to know where to start.

Take the BEST project, to which he contributed. When the Berkeley results confirmed the other temperature indices Mr Watts claimed ...

"The Earth is warmer than it was 100-150 years ago. But that was never in contention - it is a straw man argument. The magnitude and causes are what skeptics question"

Oh really Mr Watts? What then is this?

"That is to say, leading meteorological institutions in the USA and around the world have so systematically tampered with instrumental temperature data that it cannot be safely said that there has been any significant net “global warming” in the 20th century."

Oh, its a paper co-authored by Watts and still freely avilable for download. The conclusions have not just been shown to be false, they have shown to false by a project of which Watts was a part.

Can we expect the 'paper' to be removed? A correction? A retraction? An apology for misleading people? A portion of 'crow pie'?

Don't hold your breath.Watts is all about propaganda. He leaves the tedious business correction of misleading data to the real scientists.